Unlikely, unless they were carrying sniper rifles and trained in their use. I doubt 100 hand guns firing from the concert area at Mr Paddock would have made the slightest differnce to Mr Paddock's antics.
Lots of drunken concert-goers blazing away at the side of a hotel. Can't imagine what could go wrong.
No exit polls, but ANO led by Babis is expected to be comfortably the largest party, with a large number of parties likely to win seats, so coalition formation could be difficult.
No exit polls, but ANO led by Babis is expected to be comfortably the largest party, with a large number of parties likely to win seats, so coalition formation could be difficult.
No exit polls, but ANO led by Babis is expected to be comfortably the largest party, with a large number of parties likely to win seats, so coalition formation could be difficult.
David, it is undoubtedly true that the Dem's bench is rather thin, particularly if you are looking at those with national name recognition.
If Trump is not around/unable to run again, I think we have to view Paul Ryan is one of the GOP front runners - assuming the Establishment can get its party back.
David, it is undoubtedly true that the Dem's bench is rather thin, particularly if you are looking at those with national name recognition.
If Trump is not around/unable to run again, I think we have to view Paul Ryan is one of the GOP front runners - assuming the Establishment can get its party back.
If Ryan loses the speakership to Pelosi next year as is likely there is no chance he will be the GOP nominee in 2020. Most likely it would be Pence if Trump is unable or unwilling to run again but if Trump does run again I expect him to be nominee but to have faced a strong primary challenge from someone like Kasich or Cruz.
That's the type of reductive guff he would come out with.
Seems you should apply this advice to your own concept of SJW. In the popular mind, it is laden to overflowing with negative baggage and has little to do with social justice.
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
What happens if Puidgemont wins the election?
His party looks likely to lose almost all its seats. That’s one reason why he hasn’t called one himself. I suspect he may also be barred from standing, along with the rest of the members of the current ruling coalition. This entire mess was entirely needless. It has been created by the pig-headed, obtuse, right-wing Spanish nationalism of the Partido Popular. They took a cause - Catalan separatism - that enjoyed 20% support among voters and brought it to what could now be something that has majority support.
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
What happens if Puidgemont wins the election?
His party looks likely to lose almost all its seats. That’s one reason why he hasn’t called one himself. I suspect he may also be barred from standing, along with the rest of the members of the current ruling coalition. This entire mess was entirely needless. It has been created by the pig-headed, obtuse, right-wing Spanish nationalism of the Partido Popular. They took a cause - Catalan separatism - that enjoyed 20% support among voters and brought it to what could now be something that has majority support.
If he loses it would most likely be to a more hardline pro independence party
I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
Not sure how you can so certain of the result of next GE this far out and with the Tories owning Brexit.
And yet there seems to be a certainty in the other direction with Corbynistas declaring Corbyn a prime minister in waiting. As for Brexit, it remains what most people want.
With Brexit we have had years of being told the negotiations are a catastrophe, we are going over a cliff edge and the economy will be a car crash. If the Tories go into the next election with a reasonable-sounding deal, control of immigration and a growing economy they could benefit from swingback.
I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?
It’s not that they fight for social justice, it’s that they prioritise such higher-order things when significant portions of society are operating much lower down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
As an example, talking about transgendered bathrooms and not about jobs and housing.
Is Morris Dancer ghostwriting your posts? That's the type of reductive guff he would come out with.
Empathy and concomitant activism are completely subjective. Not everyone has the same perceptions and responses to issues.
That is, perhaps, overly perjorative towards Mr.D - however much he might on occasion resemble a Telegraph reader of a much older generation. It is I think the 'warrior' aspect of so called SJWs that many find objectionable, rather than the idea of social justice itself. Though, on the other hand, a number of their critics do seem quite attached to social injustice...
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
What happens if Puidgemont wins the election?
His party looks likely to lose almost all its seats. That’s one reason why he hasn’t called one himself. I suspect he may also be barred from standing, along with the rest of the members of the current ruling coalition. This entire mess was entirely needless. It has been created by the pig-headed, obtuse, right-wing Spanish nationalism of the Partido Popular. They took a cause - Catalan separatism - that enjoyed 20% support among voters and brought it to what could now be something that has majority support.
looking at it from the other side, how do you think this will impact the PP in the rest of Spain ?
I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?
It’s not that they fight for social justice, it’s that they prioritise such higher-order things when significant portions of society are operating much lower down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
As an example, talking about transgendered bathrooms and not about jobs and housing.
Is Morris Dancer ghostwriting your posts? That's the type of reductive guff he would come out with.
Empathy and concomitant activism are completely subjective. Not everyone has the same perceptions and responses to issues.
I’m sympathetic to your position, although I think the issue with so-called SJWs is their approach to social justice as opposed to the concept of actually fighting for social justice. I’d agree that there is nothing wrong with caring about trans issues for example: you can care about multiple issues at once. But for example, after the Women’s March some of the more extreme SJWs argued that women talking about issues concerning their reproductive systems was offensive because not all women had vaginas, so it was centering things on ciswomen (women who are born as female). Which I didn’t think was productive: we can talk about the experiences that both trans and ciswomen face: it’s not an either/or thing, and there’s no point in pretending that the experiences of both groups are totally identical because they are not.
I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?
It’s not that they fight for social justice, it’s that they prioritise such higher-order things when significant portions of society are operating much lower down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
As an example, talking about transgendered bathrooms and not about jobs and housing.
Is Morris Dancer ghostwriting your posts? That's the type of reductive guff he would come out with.
Empathy and concomitant activism are completely subjective. Not everyone has the same perceptions and responses to issues.
I’m sympathetic to your position, although I think the issue with so-called SJWs is their approach to social justice as opposed to the concept of actually fighting for social justice. I’d agree that there is nothing wrong with caring about trans issues for example: you can care about multiple issues at once. But for example, after the Women’s March some of the more extreme SJWs argued that women talking about issues concerning their reproductive systems was offensive because not all women had vaginas, so it was centering things on ciswomen (women who are born as female). Which I didn’t think was productive: we can talk about the experiences that both trans and ciswomen face: it’s not an either/or thing, and there’s no point in pretending that the experiences of both groups are totally identical because they are not.
I have a centre-left male friend who was sexually assaulted as a child and shared on Facebook his experience with the #metoo hashtag recently. He was attacked by some Corbynistas for trying to detract from women's voices. That sort of mindset is toxic.
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
What happens if Puidgemont wins the election?
His party looks likely to lose almost all its seats. That’s one reason why he hasn’t called one himself. I suspect he may also be barred from standing, along with the rest of the members of the current ruling coalition. This entire mess was entirely needless. It has been created by the pig-headed, obtuse, right-wing Spanish nationalism of the Partido Popular. They took a cause - Catalan separatism - that enjoyed 20% support among voters and brought it to what could now be something that has majority support.
Assuming a unionist majority in the new Generalidad, I don't think history will judge Rajoy as harshly as you. A big part of the problem has been lower non-Catalan turnout in regional elections. I hope that this drama will bring that to an end.
I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?
It’s not that they fight for social justice, it’s that they prioritise such higher-order things when significant portions of society are operating much lower down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
As an example, talking about transgendered bathrooms and not about jobs and housing.
Is Morris Dancer ghostwriting your posts? That's the type of reductive guff he would come out with.
Empathy and concomitant activism are completely subjective. Not everyone has the same perceptions and responses to issues.
I’m sympathetic to your position, although I think the issue with so-called SJWs is their approach to social justice as opposed to the concept of actually fighting for social justice. I’d agree that there is nothing wrong with caring about trans issues for example: you can care about multiple issues at once. But for example, after the Women’s March some of the more extreme SJWs argued that women talking about issues concerning their reproductive systems was offensive because not all women had vaginas, so it was centering things on ciswomen (women who are born as female). Which I didn’t think was productive: we can talk about the experiences that both trans and ciswomen face: it’s not an either/or thing, and there’s no point in pretending that the experiences of both groups are totally identical because they are not.
I have a centre-left male friend who was sexually assaulted as a child and shared on Facebook his experience with the #metoo hashtag recently. He was attacked by some Corbynistas for trying to detract from women's voices. That sort of mindset is toxic.
It is the ugliness of the peculiar brand of identity politics the SJW or Corbynista crowd seem so keen to import. Victimology poker. Privilege. Collectivists love it because it takes away our uniqueness and replaces it with a label - black, white, male, female.
Ayn Rand had a point when she said "the smallest minority in the world is the individual."
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
What happens if Puidgemont wins the election?
His party looks likely to lose almost all its seats. That’s one reason why he hasn’t called one himself. I suspect he may also be barred from standing, along with the rest of the members of the current ruling coalition. This entire mess was entirely needless. It has been created by the pig-headed, obtuse, right-wing Spanish nationalism of the Partido Popular. They took a cause - Catalan separatism - that enjoyed 20% support among voters and brought it to what could now be something that has majority support.
Assuming a unionist majority in the new Generalidad, I don't think history will judge Rajoy as harshly as you. A big part of the problem has been lower non-Catalan turnout in regional elections. I hope that this drama will bring that to an end.
The latest poll has the pro-independence ERC first on 31.8% for the next Catalan regional elections followed by the unionist Citizens on 18.3% and the unionist PP on 10.1% and the leftwing Comu party fourth on 12%. The PSC-PSOE are on 9.5%. The incumbent PDeCAT are on 8.1%.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
Plenty of families living in semis in Epping like having fields and greenspaces nearby for their children to play in. It is not just retired pensioners in big houses and bungalows who don't want any development in the greenbelt. Though I expect even Hammond would still keep most of the greenbelt even if he does allow some development on it as seems likely.
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
Edit: I;m not joking when I say that the stack of yellow builders' portakabins had more architectural merit and interest than the buildings.
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
Yes they have to be built in keeping with the area and with the appropriate infrastructure.
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
Current polling splits around 60% for pro independence parties - a couple of these parties also appear to have a history of putting up joint candidates:
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
I live in a village in the country.
Most of us would be happy with expansion since it keeps shops pubs and schools open
Yes, that is true where I live too. Most of the area are happy to have new houses built, it is the precise location that creates the trouble.
More than that: it's the facilities. Too often, new small- and medium-sized developments attached to existing settlements leech off the old, with not enough new shops, pubs, or other facilities to cope with the increased population. Because they cost money ...
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
Current polling splits around 60% for pro independence parties - a couple of these parties also appear to have a history of putting up joint candidates:
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
I live in a village in the country.
Most of us would be happy with expansion since it keeps shops pubs and schools open
Yes, that is true where I live too. Most of the area are happy to have new houses built, it is the precise location that creates the trouble.
More than that: it's the facilities. Too often, new small- and medium-sized developments attached to existing settlements leech off the old, with not enough new shops, pubs, or other facilities to cope with the increased population. Because they cost money ...
That's what is potentially exciting about the government directly CPO'ing/planning/commissioning newbuilds. They can put the infrastructure puzzle together.
Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.
Unlikely, unless they were carrying sniper rifles and trained in their use. I doubt 100 hand guns firing from the concert area at Mr Paddock would have made the slightest differnce to Mr Paddock's antics.
Genuine question, does anyone know of if any of these (hundreds of?) spree shooters have been stopped by a civilian carrying a firearm?
Curious as well to know! Read an US anti gun article the other day, which when you think about it makes sense. Most people do not carry weapons, all the time. The weapons are kept in safe places, which in theory, are easy to get at, but as Sods Law kicks in, impossible to retrieve, arm (shove in bullets (you don't keep magazines full as it weakens the spring)) and be able to use in time. Contrary to films, nobody keeps a loaded gun under the pillow or takes one into the shower or bath. In Vegas, many of the concert goers would have had guns in their vehicles, never expecting to need them while enjoying themselves.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
Plenty of families living in semis in Epping like having fields and greenspaces nearby for their children to play in. It is not just retired pensioners in big houses and bungalows who don't want any development in the greenbelt. Though I expect even Hammond would still keep most of the greenbelt even if he does allow some development on it as seems likely.
The greenbelt is not preserved in aspic at the moment; it can be built on. It's just that extra hoops have to be jumped through.
Green belt swaps are potentially quite a good idea that have not caught on, and perhaps should. The idea that all greenbelts are worthy of preservation is as ridiculous as the idea that green belts are no longer required.
I *really* like what was done in our development: instead of one big village (really, a town), it comprises three separate 'villages', separated by sizeable green spaces, leading to a common core. No roads go through the green spaces, meaning the villages maintain somewhat separate identties. The green spaces hide some things developers need to provide, e.g. lakes for SuDS, allotments, so are not massively wasteful in space. Yet it means everyone is within five minutes walk of an open space.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
Plenty of families living in semis in Epping like having fields and greenspaces nearby for their children to play in. It is not just retired pensioners in big houses and bungalows who don't want any development in the greenbelt. Though I expect even Hammond would still keep most of the greenbelt even if he does allow some development on it as seems likely.
The greenbelt is not preserved in aspic at the moment; it can be built on. It's just that extra hoops have to be jumped through.
Green belt swaps are potentially quite a good idea that have not caught on, and perhaps should. The idea that all greenbelts are worthy of preservation is as ridiculous as the idea that green belts are no longer required.
I *really* like what was done in our development: instead of one big village (really, a town), it comprises three separate 'villages', separated by sizeable green spaces, leading to a common core. No roads go through the green spaces, meaning the villages maintain somewhat separate identties. The green spaces hide some things developers need to provide, e.g. lakes for SuDS, allotments, so are not massively wasteful in space. Yet it means everyone is within five minutes walk of an open space.
Indeed there is no reason a well planned development cannot go hand in hand with preservation of sufficient green spaces.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
Plenty of families living in semis in Epping like having fields and greenspaces nearby for their children to play in. It is not just retired pensioners in big houses and bungalows who don't want any development in the greenbelt. Though I expect even Hammond would still keep most of the greenbelt even if he does allow some development on it as seems likely.
The greenbelt is not preserved in aspic at the moment; it can be built on. It's just that extra hoops have to be jumped through.
Green belt swaps are potentially quite a good idea that have not caught on, and perhaps should. The idea that all greenbelts are worthy of preservation is as ridiculous as the idea that green belts are no longer required.
Indeed. I personally believe there is an argument to be made that the hoops to be jumped through should be less (particularly given how ridiculous people are in insisting everything can be built purely on brownfield, and usually crappy brownfield at that), but it's not to be done away with.
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
Yep. It's another area that needs looking at. Far too many people are calling for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built, without caring about how liveable those houses are. Perhaps because they will never be called on to live in them ...
We're in danger of repeating the mistakes of the 1960s all over again. Which is a shame, as we know how to do it right.
I see Mugabe's been named as a goodwill ambassador by the WHO. Impressive, given about a decade ago the life expectancy in Zimbabwe was 32/30, due to an exciting combination of rampant AIDS and malnutrition (turns out throwing out white farmers and replacing them with people who don't understand agriculture isn't terrible good for maintaining the harvest).
By the way, one snippet I had to cut from the lead article was that the two favourites to win the 2020 presidential race are both Republicans. Mike Pence is shorter odds (10/1) than any Democrat (12/1, Warren).
David Davis is also favourite to be next PM. Sanders is good value in the US, he is more likely to win in 2020 than either Pence or Warren in my view.
Those are two independent statements. Pence and Warren being poor value does not necessarily make Sanders good value; he may just be less bad value.
FWIW, I think 20/1 is a bit skinny. He may well not run. As I said in the leader, he'd be 79 at the start of his term - older than Reagan was at the end of his. Age isn't quite just a number. Similarly, if he does run, he may well not be as effective as he was last time - and he'll face a more diverse field (though that may play to his advantage: polling 30% looks a lot better when the other 70% is split among ten rivals than when it's concentrated in just one). But if he runs and secures the nomination, he still then has to win, beating the GOP candidate, which will probably be Trump but there's a smallish (25-20%?) chance it'll be someone else. The combinations are complex but my reckoning is that par would be about 28/1.
Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.
Unlikely, unless they were carrying sniper rifles and trained in their use. I doubt 100 hand guns firing from the concert area at Mr Paddock would have made the slightest differnce to Mr Paddock's antics.
Genuine question, does anyone know of if any of these (hundreds of?) spree shooters have been stopped by a civilian carrying a firearm?
Curious as well to know! Read an US anti gun article the other day, which when you think about it makes sense. Most people do not carry weapons, all the time. The weapons are kept in safe places, which in theory, are easy to get at, but as Sods Law kicks in, impossible to retrieve, arm (shove in bullets (you don't keep magazines full as it weakens the spring)) and be able to use in time. Contrary to films, nobody keeps a loaded gun under the pillow or takes one into the shower or bath. In Vegas, many of the concert goers would have had guns in their vehicles, never expecting to need them while enjoying themselves.
There is very little evidence that gun ownership is either protective or deterrent to crime, indeed gun owners seem to be a target for crimes:
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
Yep. It's another area that needs looking at. Far too many people are calling for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built, without caring about how liveable those houses are. Perhaps because they will never be called on to live in them ...
That's being rather presumptive about the motivations of people calling for masses of new houses to be built. There are as we know good reasons for wanting a significant increase, and policy makers need to then make sure they take into account making sure anything built is livability and other issues.
Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.
To shoot upwards at that distance, you need a rifle with a sniper scope, training, practice and experience, plus an experienced observer. Popping off with a handgun is just a waste of ammunition and bloody dangerous for everyone except the target.
Genuine question, does anyone know of if any of these (hundreds of?) spree shooters have been stopped by a civilian carrying a firearm?
I don't know of any in America. I seem to recall one in Israel many years ago under unusual circumstances (the attacker's belt went off prematurely) but I can't find a link.
Put it this way, I can't see how arming everyone would stop such attacks. Those who want to use their weapons would (a) have to have time to draw them and (b) be willing and able to use them on another human. The former is improbable and the latter is fortunately rare.
Unlikely, unless they were carrying sniper rifles and trained in their use. I doubt 100 hand guns firing from the concert area at Mr Paddock would have made the slightest differnce to Mr Paddock's antics.
Lots of drunken concert-goers blazing away at the side of a hotel. Can't imagine what could go wrong.
And, of course, anyone pulling a gun would immediately risk becoming a target themselves for armed law enforcement officers ...
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
My current housing estate is split into two - rather nice three bed houses built from 1951 to 1968 being about 25%. These have large kitchens, gardens, and some although not many have garages.
About ten years ago 75% of the estate was knocked down and rebuilt with tiny two beds sometimes over three floors. These do not have gardens, or garages, or even adequate parking.
I think we can safely say the planners who approved this were muppets.
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
Yep. It's another area that needs looking at. Far too many people are calling for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built, without caring about how liveable those houses are. Perhaps because they will never be called on to live in them ...
We're in danger of repeating the mistakes of the 1960s all over again. Which is a shame, as we know how to do it right.
1960's system built housing was a decent size, the problem was poor quality.
One reason people my age do not want to downsize is that we are rather overstocked with possessions. Just as people and cars have grown, houses need to do so too!
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment ordered and built, and if the invasion was scheduled for the Spring of 1941. That, in turn, would have delayed Barbarossa - the real purpose of the war from Hitler's point - until at least 1942, by which time the Red Army would have recovered further still from the Purge.
Britain was in a reasonable state to withstand an invasion. Where it was vulnerable in 1940/1 was firstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
@kyf_100 Conversations concerning the politics of identity have been going on Left circles for decades now: it certainly not a new thing initiated by Corbynistas. Nor will it end after Corbyn goes. Nor is it a particularly new thing in the states either. Nor did the Left start identity politics: in previous centuries there were plenty of theories that whites were superior to black people and other minorities.
As long as groups feel that they have collective experiences of discrimination that they wish to highlight in order to change that reality, identity politics will to some degree or another exist. In that sense I don’t see it as ‘victimology’ as opposed to highlighting issues that suggest we still have some way to go as a society before we have fully dealt with issues such as sexism/misogyny and class barriers for example. Although the example you posted there by that teacher is something I wouldn’t agree with.
But the above is a very unpopular opinion on here.
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
Yep. It's another area that needs looking at. Far too many people are calling for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built, without caring about how liveable those houses are. Perhaps because they will never be called on to live in them ...
That's being rather presumptive about the motivations of people calling for masses of new houses to be built. There are as we know good reasons for wanting a significant increase, and policy makers need to then make sure they take into account making sure anything built is livability and other issues.
It may be presumptive, but is is also based on listening to people endless drone on about numbers and not the quality or liveability of the resulting houses and developments. It's worse when people bring politics into it: "The only way for the Conservatives to win an election is to build new houses!"
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
I live in a village in the country.
Most of us would be happy with expansion since it keeps shops pubs and schools open
Almost. Most of us would be happy if were part of a wider deal - build a bypass so that people can cross the roads safely, that sort of thing. It rarely is of course and that’s the problem.
I just spent an hour this morning walking about the new development of Eddington (previously known as Northwest Cambridge). It was a bit of any eye-opener: box-like structures everywhere, designed by architects who evidently only been trained to design in right-angles.
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
New builds are often rather poky, and too many to the Hectare. It is very difficult to get permission at less than 50 per Hectare here.
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
Yep. It's another area that needs looking at. Far too many people are calling for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built, without caring about how liveable those houses are. Perhaps because they will never be called on to live in them ...
We're in danger of repeating the mistakes of the 1960s all over again. Which is a shame, as we know how to do it right.
1960's system built housing was a decent size, the problem was poor quality.
One reason people my age do not want to downsize is that we are rather overstocked with possessions. Just as people and cars have grown, houses need to do so too!
As an aside, I heard someone in a new development complaining that their four-bedroom house only had two parking spaces. Apparently six people lived in the house, and they had seven cars!
I'm unsure how builders and planners can cope with such unrealistic expectations.
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election
Current polling splits around 60% for pro independence parties - a couple of these parties also appear to have a history of putting up joint candidates:
@kyf_100 Conversations concerning the politics of identity have been going on Left circles for decades now: it certainly not a new thing initiated by Corbynistas. Nor will it end after Corbyn goes. Nor is it a particularly new thing in the states either. Nor did the Left start identity politics: in previous centuries there were plenty of theories that whites were superior to black people and other minorities.
As long as groups feel that they have collective experiences of discrimination that they wish to highlight in order to change that reality, identity politics will to some degree or another exist. In that sense I don’t see it as ‘victimology’ as opposed to highlighting issues that suggest we still have some way to go as a society before we have fully dealt with issues such as sexism/misogyny and class barriers for example.
But the above is a very unpopular opinion on here.
The most common form of identity politics trumping issues such as jobs and housing in British political life is not Trans vs Cis Feminism, but rather the identity politics of nationalism. That sort of identity politics is far more toxic, as it is far less likely to be satisfactorily resolved. Nationalism is the politics of grievance.
@kyf_100 Conversations concerning the politics of identity have been going on Left circles for decades now: it certainly not a new thing initiated by Corbynistas. Nor will it end after Corbyn goes. Nor is it a particularly new thing in the states either. Nor did the Left start identity politics: in previous centuries there were plenty of theories that whites were superior to black people and other minorities.
As long as groups feel that they have collective experiences of discrimination that they wish to highlight in order to change that reality, identity politics will to some degree or another exist. In that sense I don’t see it as ‘victimology’ as opposed to highlighting issues that suggest we still have some way to go as a society before we have fully dealt with issues such as sexism/misogyny and class barriers for example.
But the above is a very unpopular opinion on here.
The most common form of identity politics trumping issues such as jobs and housing in British political life is not Trans vs Cis Feminism, but rather the identity politics of nationalism. That sort of identity politics is far more toxic, as it is far less likely to be satisfactorily resolved. Nationalism is the politics of grievance.
By the way, one snippet I had to cut from the lead article was that the two favourites to win the 2020 presidential race are both Republicans. Mike Pence is shorter odds (10/1) than any Democrat (12/1, Warren).
David Davis is also favourite to be next PM. Sanders is good value in the US, he is more likely to win in 2020 than either Pence or Warren in my view.
Those are two independent statements. Pence and Warren being poor value does not necessarily make Sanders good value; he may just be less bad value.
FWIW, I think 20/1 is a bit skinny. He may well not run. As I said in the leader, he'd be 79 at the start of his term - older than Reagan was at the end of his. Age isn't quite just a number. Similarly, if he does run, he may well not be as effective as he was last time - and he'll face a more diverse field (though that may play to his advantage: polling 30% looks a lot better when the other 70% is split among ten rivals than when it's concentrated in just one). But if he runs and secures the nomination, he still then has to win, beating the GOP candidate, which will probably be Trump but there's a smallish (25-20%?) chance it'll be someone else. The combinations are complex but my reckoning is that par would be about 28/1.
Trump is almost as old as Sanders is so I don't see why age is such a barrier (plus he can also pick a much younger VP nominee). The momentum is also with him.
As I said earlier he is in a similar position to Reagan was before 1980, like Reagan he lost the 2016 nomination to Clinton just as Reagan lost the 1976 nomination to Ford, Clinton then lost the general election to Trump just as Ford lost the general election to Carter.
Many Republicans in 1976 thought they had nominated the wrong candidate just as many Democrats in 2016 felt they had nominated the wrong candidate. In 1980 Republicans rectified their mistake and Reagan made Carter a 1 term President. Sanders will be hoping to do the same to Trump in 2020.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back in to the mainland in a retreat is not the same as holding off a wholescale Nazi invasion, especially as the German Navy would have been supported by the full support of the Luftwaffe, Stuker dive bombers and U-boats while the Royal Navy would have been on its own had the RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.
To shoot upwards at that distance, you need a rifle with a sniper scope, training, practice and experience, plus an experienced observer. Popping off with a handgun is just a waste of ammunition and bloody dangerous for everyone except the target.
I would have thought that, but the experience in Texas 50 years ago suggests that might not be true:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back in to the mainland in a retreat is not the same as holding off a wholescale Nazi invasion, especially as the German Navy would have been supported by the full support of the Luftwaffe, Stuker dive bombers and U-boats while the Royal Navy would have been on its own had the RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
No serious scholar thinks there was any chance a 1940 invasion would have succeeded - look at the example of Norway for logistic capability.
Why not stridently comment on something on which you have more than a superficial knowledge.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back in to the the Battle of Britain.
No serious scholar thinks there was any chance a 1940 invasion would have succeeded - look at the example of Norway for logistic capability.
Why not stridently comment on something on which you have more than a superficial knowledge.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
By the way, one snippet I had to cut from the lead article was that the two favourites to win the 2020 presidential race are both Republicans. Mike Pence is shorter odds (10/1) than any Democrat (12/1, Warren).
David Davis is also favourite to be next PM. Sanders is good value in the US, he is more likely to win in 2020 than either Pence or Warren in my view.
Those are two independent statements. Pence and Warren being poor value does not necessarily make Sanders good value; he may just be less bad value.
FWIW, I think 20/1 is a bit skinny. He may well not run. As I said in the leader, he'd be 79 at the start of his term - older than Reagan was at the end of his. Age isn't quite just a number. Similarly, if he does run, he may well not be as effective as he was last time - and he'll face a more diverse field (though that may play to his advantage: polling 30% looks a lot better when the other 70% is split among ten rivals than when it's concentrated in just one). But if he runs and secures the nomination, he still then has to win, beating the GOP candidate, which will probably be Trump but there's a smallish (25-20%?) chance it'll be someone else. The combinations are complex but my reckoning is that par would be about 28/1.
Trump is almost as old as Sanders is so I don't see why age is such a barrier (plus he can also pick a much younger VP nominee). The momentum is also with him.
As I said earlier he is in a similar position to Reagan was before 1980, like Reagan he lost the 2016 nomination to Clinton just as Reagan lost the 1976 nomination to Ford, Clinton then lost the general election to Trump just as Ford lost the general election to Carter.
Many Republicans in 1976 thought they had nominated the wrong candidate just as many Democrats in 2016 felt they had nominated the wrong candidate. In 1980 Republicans rectified their mistake and Reagan made Carter a 1 term President. Sanders will be hoping to do the same to Trump in 2020.
He's not 'almost the same age'. Trump was 70 when he took the oath; Sanders would be 79. Even on a same-year basis, there's still a meaningful difference between 74 and 79. It's not unsual for world leaders to be in their late 70s. It is rare for them to be in their mid-80s (never mind late 80s, if we're thinking about a second term).
And he's still a self-declared socialist which would give Trump an immense amount of negative campaigning material to scare middle America with.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
I live in a village in the country.
Most of us would be happy with expansion since it keeps shops pubs and schools open
Yes, that is true where I live too. Most of the area are happy to have new houses built, it is the precise location that creates the trouble.
In other words everyone’s in favour of development and new housing in theory, but goes full-on NIMBY with every proposal for development and new housing in practice.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. .
Getting some men back in to the mainland in a retreat is not the same as holding off a wholescale Nazi invasion, especially as the German Navy would have been supported by the full support of the Luftwaffe, Stuker dive bombers and U-boats while the Royal Navy would have been on its own had the RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
Rhine barges were not suitable for channel crossing. They are not seaworthy and would have been sitting ducks for any sort of naval incursion, and frankly simply attempting the crossing in anything but a glassy sea would have incurred lots of sinkings. Transporting artillery or tanks by this means? not viable. The Germans simply had no amphibious capability and couldn't do more than a river crossing. Stukas incurred very high losses as divebombers, wich is why the Luftwaffe phased them out so quickly.
The Battle of Britain was not particularly a close run thing. We finished the Battle with more airworthy fighters than we started with:
By the way, one snippet I had to cut from the lead article was that the two favourites to win the 2020 presidential race are both Republicans. Mike Pence is shorter odds (10/1) than any Democrat (12/1, Warren).
David Davis is also favourite to be next PM. Sanders is good value in the US, he is more likely to win in 2020 than either Pence or Warren in my view.
Those are two independent statements. Pence and Warren being poor value does not necessarily make Sanders good value; he may just be less bad value.
/1.
Trump is almost as old as Sanders is so I don't see why age is such a barrier (plus he can also pick a much younger VP nominee). The momentum is also with him.
As I said earlier Trump in 2020.
He's not 'almost the same age'. Trump was 70 when he took the oath; Sanders would be 79. Even on a same-year basis, there's still a meaningful difference between 74 and 79. It's not unsual for world leaders to be in their late 70s. It is rare for them to be in their mid-80s (never mind late 80s, if we're thinking about a second term).
And he's still a self-declared socialist which would give Trump an immense amount of negative campaigning material to scare middle America with.
Berlusconi is running again at 80 in Italy next year, Mugabe is over 90. In real terms there a 5 year difference between Trump and Sanders is nothing. Accounting for rising life expectancy Reagan was about the same age as Sanders was almost 40 years ago.
As for as 'self-declared socialist' Sanders is not really that different on economics from say LBJ or FDR, he is certainly no hardcore Marxist and many thought Reagan could not win either. Sanders also only needs to add Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the Hillary states, both of which are amenable to the populist economics Sanders espouses, to win the Electoral College. He could even lose Florida and Ohio to Trump and still win if he wins those states and the North East and holds the Western states where Hispanics are a near majority which went for Hillary.
As I have said before if Corbyn wins here it is likely Sanders will win there in a reverse Thatcher and Reagan.
Sounds promising, although IMO, there's a decent chance this leak is bullsh*t from one of Hammond's enemies.
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
It would be a badly needed policy so let us hope the rabid right don't kill it on ideological grounds.
I'm not sure there's much ideology there, just naked self interest.
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
I live in a village in the country.
Most of us would be happy with expansion since it keeps shops pubs and schools open
Yes, that is true where I live too. Most of the area are happy to have new houses built, it is the precise location that creates the trouble.
In other words everyone’s in favour of development and new housing in theory, but goes full-on NIMBY with every proposal for development and new housing in practice.
Not entirely. The adoption of village and town plans setting out areas for new building by agreement works well in Leics, rather than constant infilling by piecemeal development.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back in to the mainland in a retreat is not the same as holding off a wholescale Nazi invasion, especially as the German Navy would have been supported by the full support of the Luftwaffe, Stuker dive bombers and U-boats while the Royal Navy would have been on its own had the RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
It wasn't 'some men'; it was a third of a million men. Three entire armies. The Luftwaffe had well over a week to sink or disable the ships making continuous crossings and they failed. Sure, they got some but nowhere near enough to complete the job. Hell, they didn't even disable the mole - and that wasn't moving. By contrast, they would have only a few hours had to sink most if not of all the heavy units of the home fleet before that reached the invasion barges, otherwise the battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers would have caused utter carnage - and that's if they could locate them in time as they steamed south. No doubt the invasion could have been assisted by a large U-boat presence in the (shallow) North Sea but while that would have helped, it would have been nothing like an impenetrable screen. If they failed, the Wehrmacht would have struggled to establish and hold a beach-head, without a usable port to bring in tanks and field guns.
That's not to say it couldn't have been done but it would have been a hell of a gamble for relatively low stakes given that the main war was always intented to be in the east.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but .
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. .
Getting some men backthe RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
Rhine barges were not suitable for channel crossing. They are not seaworthy and would have been sitting ducks for any sort of naval incursion, and frankly simply attempting the crossing in anything but a glassy sea would have incurred lots of sinkings. Transporting artillery or tanks by this means? not viable. The Germans simply had no amphibious capability and couldn't do more than a river crossing. Stukas incurred very high losses as divebombers, wich is why the Luftwaffe phased them out so quickly.
The Battle of Britain was not particularly a close run thing. We finished the Battle with more airworthy fighters than we started with:
* his other books are very good too, particularly the one on the German military.
With U boats inflicting heavy losses on British ships as they did in the Battle of the Atlantic and Stukas divebombing RN ships in port or at sea unhindered by a defeated RAF, the barges and German ships carrying their troops and military would then have had a clear path to the UK mainland. At which point even without many tanks the Nazi troops would by 1941 have been far larger than the British troops and Home Guard defending the homeland.
Though of course the fact the RAF won the Battle of Britain mean a successful Nazi invasion could never be launched.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back in to the the Battle of Britain.
No serious scholar thinks there was any chance a 1940 invasion would have succeeded - look at the example of Norway for logistic capability.
Why not stridently comment on something on which you have more than a superficial knowledge.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Only if it had very significantly re-engineered its armaments programme to that end. Which is another reason why had Sealion been given the priority necessary to have given it a decent chance of working, Barbarossa couldn't have happened until 1942 at the very earliest.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, .
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
It wasn't 'some men'; it was a third of a million men. Three entire armies. The Luftwaffe had well over a week to sink or disable the ships making continuous crossings and they failed. Sure, they got some but nowhere near enough to complete the job. Hell, they didn't even disable the mole - and that wasn't moving. By contrast, they would have only a few hours had to sink most if not of all the heavy units of the home fleet before that reached the invasion barges, otherwise the battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers would have caused utter carnage - and that's if they could locate them in time as they steamed south. No doubt the invasion could have been assisted by a large U-boat presence in the (shallow) North Sea but while that would have helped, it would have been nothing like an impenetrable screen. If they failed, the Wehrmacht would have struggled to establish and hold a beach-head, without a usable port to bring in tanks and field guns.
That's not to say it couldn't have been done but it would have been a hell of a gamble for relatively low stakes given that the main war was always intented to be in the east.
The Luftwaffe would not have had 'only a few hours' to sink the Royal Navy, they would have been bombing them for weeks if not months before a full scale invasion was launched whether in port or at sea, assisted of course by the U-boats.
By 1940 the Nazis had 2.5 million men in the Wehrmacht, the third of a million men left to defend Britain once they had landed assisted by the Home Guard would have had little chance.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but .
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. .
Getting some men backthe RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
* his other books are very good too, particularly the one on the German military.
With U boats inflicting heavy losses on British ships as they did in the Battle of the Atlantic and Stukas divebombing RN ships in port or at sea unhindered by a defeated RAF, the barges and German ships carrying their troops and military would then have had a clear path to the UK mainland. At which point even without many tanks the Nazi troops would by 1941 have been far larger than the British troops and Home Guard defending the homeland.
Though of course the fact the RAF won the Battle of Britain mean a successful Nazi invasion could never be launched.
As pointed out, 1941 is a year on from the BoB, Germany could have prepared and equipped for Sealion, but only at the expense of delaying a Balkan and Eastern campaign by another year. During that year, the British Army would also be significantly re-equipped and expanded. German naval losses were heavy in the Norway campaign, and their airborne losses in Crete demonstrated how limited their capability was.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
Actually Afghanistan was invaded by NATO and the Taliban government toppled and replaced, the fact the Taliban is still resisting as the British resistance would likely have resisted the NAZIs does not change that. In Iraq the Iraqi government and Kurds have now almost driven ISIS from the country assisted by western airpower.
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment orderefirstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. On the other hand, the RN still managed to evacuate 330,000 men over the course of more than a week, so air power wasn't *that* decisive - on the other hand, any heavy warships getting within range of the invasion fleet could have ended it there and then. Ultimately, stopping the invasion barges would have been about stopping an existential threat to the UK; getting them through would not have been so for Germany. Britain would have accepted much higher losses to achieve its objective.
Getting some men back in to the the Battle of Britain.
No serious scholar thinks there was any chance a 1940 invasion would have succeeded - look at the example of Norway for logistic capability.
Why not stridently comment on something on which you have more than a superficial knowledge.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what .
Only if it had very significantly re-engineered its armaments programme to that end. Which is another reason why had Sealion been given the priority necessary to have given it a decent chance of working, Barbarossa couldn't have happened until 1942 at the very earliest.
Had the UK been successfully invaded in 1941 the Nazis could then have left an occupation force there and turned their full attention to Russia in 1942 having fully secured Western Europe for themselves or Fascist regimes (with 1 or 2 neutral nations like Ireland and Switzerland).
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but .
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. .
Getting some men backthe RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
* his other books are very good too, particularly the one on the German military.
With U boats inflicting heavy losses on British ships as they did in the Battle of the Atlantic and Stukas divebombing RN ships in port or at sea unhindered by a defeated RAF, the barges and German ships carrying their troops and military would then have had a clear path to the UK mainland. At which point even without many tanks the Nazi troops would by 1941 have been far larger than the British troops and Home Guard defending the homeland.
Though of course the fact the RAF won the Battle of Britain mean a successful Nazi invasion could never be launched.
As pointed out, 1941 is a year on from the BoB, Germany could have prepared and equipped for Sealion, but only at the expense of delaying a Balkan and Eastern campaign by another year. During that year, the British Army would also be significantly re-equipped and expanded. German naval losses were heavy in the Norway campaign, and their airborne losses in Crete demonstrated how limited their capability was.
Sealion was never viable in 1940.
They could have launched Sealion in 1941 and delayed Barbarossa until 1942 had they won the Battle of Britain.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
Actually Afghanistan was invaded by NATO and the Taliban government toppled and replaced, the fact the Taliban is still resisting as the British resistance would likely have resisted the NAZIs does not change that. In Iraq the Iraqi government and Kurds have now almost driven ISIS from the country assisted by western airpower.
I doubt comparisons between Afghanistan's military in 2001 and the UK's in 1940 are very valid, for a number of reasons.
Airpower in Syria is helping, but the ground is only being won by feet on the ground and battles between ISS and the Syrian government forces, the Kurds, Iranians, etc, etc. Germany would still have had the massive problem of getting troops over and creating a bridgehead.
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exile
Not quite! In
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.
No, but .
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showed
To an extent, that's true. The losses would have been grievous. .
Getting some men backthe RAF lost the Battle of Britain.
* his other books are very good too, particularly the one on the German military.
With U boats inflicting heavy losses on British ships as they did in the Battle of the Atlantic and Stukas divebombing RN ships in port or at sea unhindered by a defeated RAF, the barges and German ships carrying their troops and military would then have had a clear path to the UK mainland. At which point even without many tanks the Nazi troops would by 1941 have been far larger than the British troops and Home Guard defending the homeland.
Though of course the fact the RAF won the Battle of Britain mean a successful Nazi invasion could never be launched.
As pointed out, 1941 is a year on from the BoB, Germany could have prepared and equipped for Sealion, but only at the expense of delaying a Balkan and Eastern campaign by another year. During that year, the British Army would also be significantly re-equipped and expanded. German naval losses were heavy in the Norway campaign, and their airborne losses in Crete demonstrated how limited their capability was.
Sealion was never viable in 1940.
They could have launched Sealion in 1941 and delayed Barbarossa until 1942 had they won the Battle of Britain.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
Actually Afghanistan was invaded by NATO and the Taliban government toppled and replaced, the fact the Taliban is still resisting as the British resistance would likely have resisted the NAZIs does not change that. In Iraq the Iraqi government and Kurds have now almost driven ISIS from the country assisted by western airpower.
I doubt comparisons between Afghanistan's military in 2001 and the UK's in 1940 are very valid, for a number of reasons.
Airpower in Syria is helping, but the ground is only being won by feet on the ground and battles between ISS and the Syrian government forces, the Kurds, Iranians, etc, etc. Germany would still have had the massive problem of getting troops over and creating a bridgehead.
As I have pointed out the Wehrmacht had over 2 million men in 1940, it only needed to get a fraction of them across the Channel in 1940 to have had more than the third of a million British troops in the UK.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
Actually Afghanistan was invaded by NATO and the Taliban government toppled and replaced, the fact the Taliban is still resisting as the British resistance would likely have resisted the NAZIs does not change that. In Iraq the Iraqi government and Kurds have now almost driven ISIS from the country assisted by western airpower.
I doubt comparisons between Afghanistan's military in 2001 and the UK's in 1940 are very valid, for a number of reasons.
Airpower in Syria is helping, but the ground is only being won by feet on the ground and battles between ISS and the Syrian government forces, the Kurds, Iranians, etc, etc. Germany would still have had the massive problem of getting troops over and creating a bridgehead.
As I have pointed out the Wehrmacht had over 2 million men in 1940, it only needed to get a fraction of them across the Channel in 1940 to have had more than the third of a million British troops in the UK.
I fear you massively underestimate the difficulty in them getting that small fraction over, given the state of their respective navies.
But this is an argument over alternate histories which, whilst fun, can rarely be won by any side.
Not quite F1: Gasly has lost his chance at the Super Formula title after the final planned race in Suzuka was cancelled due to a typhoon.
That’s horribly unfortunate for Gasly, doubly so given that he missed the F1 race in the US to be in Japan. Good for Brendan Hartley and Daniil Kvyat though.
Well you seem pretty certain of that and what is this all encompassing knowledge you have which makes you so superior? Had the Luftwaffe destroyed the RAF by late 1940 the NAZIs would have been well placed to launch an invasion of Britain by spring 1941.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
Actually Afghanistan was invaded by NATO and the Taliban government toppled and replaced, the fact the Taliban is still resisting as the British resistance would likely have resisted the NAZIs does not change that. In Iraq the Iraqi government and Kurds have now almost driven ISIS from the country assisted by western airpower.
I doubt comparisons between Afghanistan's military in 2001 and the UK's in 1940 are very valid, for a number of reasons.
Airpower in Syria is helping, but the ground is only being won by feet on the ground and battles between ISS and the Syrian government forces, the Kurds, Iranians, etc, etc. Germany would still have had the massive problem of getting troops over and creating a bridgehead.
As I have pointed out the Wehrmacht had over 2 million men in 1940, it only needed to get a fraction of them across the Channel in 1940 to have had more than the third of a million British troops in the UK.
I fear you massively underestimate the difficulty in them getting that small fraction over, given the state of their respective navies.
But this is an argument over alternate histories which, whilst fun, can rarely be won by any side.
If the RAF had been destroyed and the Royal Navy massively weakened through weeks of Stuka dive bombing and u boat attacks the difficulties of getting that small fraction over would have been far weaker than had the Battle of Britain been lost.
I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it. My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not. However Scotland, as ever, is different.
I think many commentators underestimate the power of the self denying prophecy. May did badly because she was expected to win handsomely. People came out to prevent it. In 2022 we will have had 5 years of Corbyn being expected to win. People will come out in droves to prevent it. Labour was on an upward trajectory for so many reasons in 2017 which may not be appicable in 2022-and what goes up must come down. As a Labour supporter (non Blairite) I remain consistent to the view that Corbyn is an existential threat to the Labour party and that after the 2022 defeat Labour must return toTrue Labour, neither Blairite or Corbynista.
I also used to be convinced that Corbyn was a disaster for Labour, but no longer feel confident in that view.
Current polling suggests the main two parties are pretty much tied. That's hung parliament territory.
But this is my point. Current polling shows a tiny Labour lead when no opposition that did not have a 15 point lead between elections has ever won the subsequent general election. For example Cameron had a 20 point lead in 2008, and there was a hung parliament in 2010. Neil Kinnock and Miliband both had double digit leads between elections. Corbyn's tiny lead will easily be obliterated. Corbyn would be an even bigger disaster for Labour in power. He would toxify the party for a generation paving the way for decades of Tory landslides -and possibly a new Thatcher figure.
Comments
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/921705862992887808
Czech election
Polls have just closed.
Results:
https://volby.cz/pls/ps2017/ps?xjazyk=EN
Map:
http://volby.idnes.cz/
TV streams:
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24#live
http://www.idnes.cz/
No exit polls, but ANO led by Babis is expected to be comfortably the largest party, with a large number of parties likely to win seats, so coalition formation could be difficult.
Thanks
DC
We'll see.
Edit. The leak is in the sun rather than the times/tele/mail, though. So it could be genuine.
If Trump is not around/unable to run again, I think we have to view Paul Ryan is one of the GOP front runners - assuming the Establishment can get its party back.
It is I think the 'warrior' aspect of so called SJWs that many find objectionable, rather than the idea of social justice itself. Though, on the other hand, a number of their critics do seem quite attached to social injustice...
ciswomen (women who are born as female). Which I didn’t think was productive: we can talk about the experiences that both trans and ciswomen face: it’s not an either/or thing, and there’s no point in pretending that the experiences of both groups are totally identical because they are not.
Ayn Rand had a point when she said "the smallest minority in the world is the individual."
https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/921339507026350080
It terrifies me that this is already a thing in the States and we could go the same way if the country goes full Corbyn.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4733588/philip-hammond-considers-freeing-up-sites-and-hiring-builders-for-thousands-of-new-homes/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Catalan_regional_election#Opinion_polls
Restrict supply, prevent prices falling, NIMBY.
The country house in the shires with a view and "farmland" around them to walk their dogs, while being within an hours commute of london.
They don't want - as their neighbours - common people living in semi's.
Most of us would be happy with expansion since it keeps shops pubs and schools open
I'm serious. Boxes everywhere, Lego architecture.
I'm unsure that half the people wittering on about building new houses on here know, or perhaps even care, about the reality and problems facing new developments.
Edit: I;m not joking when I say that the stack of yellow builders' portakabins had more architectural merit and interest than the buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Catalan_regional_election#Opinion_polls
I can't see Rajoy calling an election any time soon - unless he bans the pro independence parties from putting up candidates !!
New house builds are significantly smaller than existing stock, and too small for family life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14909066
On the continent, houses are advertised by floor area, something that we rarely emphasize here.
Green belt swaps are potentially quite a good idea that have not caught on, and perhaps should. The idea that all greenbelts are worthy of preservation is as ridiculous as the idea that green belts are no longer required.
I *really* like what was done in our development: instead of one big village (really, a town), it comprises three separate 'villages', separated by sizeable green spaces, leading to a common core. No roads go through the green spaces, meaning the villages maintain somewhat separate identties. The green spaces hide some things developers need to provide, e.g. lakes for SuDS, allotments, so are not massively wasteful in space. Yet it means everyone is within five minutes walk of an open space.
We're in danger of repeating the mistakes of the 1960s all over again. Which is a shame, as we know how to do it right.
I see Mugabe's been named as a goodwill ambassador by the WHO. Impressive, given about a decade ago the life expectancy in Zimbabwe was 32/30, due to an exciting combination of rampant AIDS and malnutrition (turns out throwing out white farmers and replacing them with people who don't understand agriculture isn't terrible good for maintaining the harvest).
FWIW, I think 20/1 is a bit skinny. He may well not run. As I said in the leader, he'd be 79 at the start of his term - older than Reagan was at the end of his. Age isn't quite just a number. Similarly, if he does run, he may well not be as effective as he was last time - and he'll face a more diverse field (though that may play to his advantage: polling 30% looks a lot better when the other 70% is split among ten rivals than when it's concentrated in just one). But if he runs and secures the nomination, he still then has to win, beating the GOP candidate, which will probably be Trump but there's a smallish (25-20%?) chance it'll be someone else. The combinations are complex but my reckoning is that par would be about 28/1.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0804-hemenway-defensive-gun-home-20150730-story.html
Put it this way, I can't see how arming everyone would stop such attacks. Those who want to use their weapons would (a) have to have time to draw them and (b) be willing and able to use them on another human. The former is improbable and the latter is fortunately rare.
About ten years ago 75% of the estate was knocked down and rebuilt with tiny two beds sometimes over three floors. These do not have gardens, or garages, or even adequate parking.
I think we can safely say the planners who approved this were muppets.
One reason people my age do not want to downsize is that we are rather overstocked with possessions. Just as people and cars have grown, houses need to do so too!
As long as groups feel that they have collective experiences of discrimination that they wish to highlight in order to change that reality, identity politics will to some degree or another exist. In that sense I don’t see it as ‘victimology’ as opposed to highlighting issues that suggest we still have some way to go as a society before we have fully dealt with issues such as sexism/misogyny and class barriers for example. Although the example you posted there by that teacher is something I wouldn’t agree with.
But the above is a very unpopular opinion on here.
I'm unsure how builders and planners can cope with such unrealistic expectations.
As I said earlier he is in a similar position to Reagan was before 1980, like Reagan he lost the 2016 nomination to Clinton just as Reagan lost the 1976 nomination to Ford, Clinton then lost the general election to Trump just as Ford lost the general election to Carter.
Many Republicans in 1976 thought they had nominated the wrong candidate just as many Democrats in 2016 felt they had nominated the wrong candidate. In 1980 Republicans rectified their mistake and Reagan made Carter a 1 term President. Sanders will be hoping to do the same to Trump in 2020.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/96-minutes/
See the comments from James Damon onwards, especially Bill Helmer's.
EDIT scrub that point, they were using rifles.
Why not stridently comment on something on which you have more than a superficial knowledge.
Norway was of course occupied by the NAZIs by June 1940.
And he's still a self-declared socialist which would give Trump an immense amount of negative campaigning material to scare middle America with.
The Battle of Britain was not particularly a close run thing. We finished the Battle with more airworthy fighters than we started with:
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-42.html
Stephen Bungay's* book on the battle as an exercise in logistics and attrition is really quite a good slant on this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0071B705O/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1508594592836
* his other books are very good too, particularly the one on the German military.
As for as 'self-declared socialist' Sanders is not really that different on economics from say LBJ or FDR, he is certainly no hardcore Marxist and many thought Reagan could not win either. Sanders also only needs to add Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the Hillary states, both of which are amenable to the populist economics Sanders espouses, to win the Electoral College. He could even lose Florida and Ohio to Trump and still win if he wins those states and the North East and holds the Western states where Hispanics are a near majority which went for Hillary.
As I have said before if Corbyn wins here it is likely Sanders will win there in a reverse Thatcher and Reagan.
That's not to say it couldn't have been done but it would have been a hell of a gamble for relatively low stakes given that the main war was always intented to be in the east.
Though of course the fact the RAF won the Battle of Britain mean a successful Nazi invasion could never be launched.
Whilst that wargame did not start with the presumption that the RAF had been destroyed, the weight of evidence is still against the Germans IMO. After all, air superiority does not automagically win a war, as Iraq and Afgahnistan (several times) have shown.
I see no evidence that the Germans would have been 'well placed' to launch an invasion, even if the RAF had been obliterated. Their maritime capability was lacking.
By 1940 the Nazis had 2.5 million men in the Wehrmacht, the third of a million men left to defend Britain once they had landed assisted by the Home Guard would have had little chance.
Sealion was never viable in 1940.
Airpower in Syria is helping, but the ground is only being won by feet on the ground and battles between ISS and the Syrian government forces, the Kurds, Iranians, etc, etc. Germany would still have had the massive problem of getting troops over and creating a bridgehead.
But this is an argument over alternate histories which, whilst fun, can rarely be won by any side.
Though I agree this is all hypothetical.
Corbyn would be an even bigger disaster for Labour in power. He would toxify the party for a generation paving the way for decades of Tory landslides -and possibly a new Thatcher figure.